Sunday, June 12, 2011
Indies Vs. Blockbusters
Okay, I've been having this debate with a friend of mine for a while now. Which is the better category for movies to be made in? Do you like the clever ways in which independant films work around their smaller budgets, or would you rather check out a blockbuster with awesome effects and a budget that is insanely high. Personally, I gotta go with the indies. There's no better feeling then stumbling along some awesome indy film on netflix or something like that. I am not trying to say that just because a film has a high budget means that it is no good. BUT, I think indies are usually more cleverly put together to hide their lack of budget and don't follow certain stereotypes that some blockbusters do. What are your opinions on this one?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am a big fan of indie films. It probably just comes down to the genre of film you enjoy as to what a person would pick. I'm not a huge fan of action or thrillers but I love a good story and I'm not going to hide the fact that I'm a big fan of smart and simple chick flicks, haha. There are so many blurred lines though. By saying I love indie, I don't want to cancel out how great some blockbusters can be just because they are not genres I watch as often. When I think about dark movies for example, Brick functioned BEAUTIFULLY as an indie film and would have been ruined as a blockbuster but V for Vendetta would have probably been horrible without the big special effects they put into it. I think that Sofia Coppola does a beautiful job masking blockbusters in an almost indie package where the money spent is covered and it is still as you put it "cleverly put together." I see the value of both styles but I still think independents have a special something that blockbusters can never quite touch.
ReplyDeleteI always have this debate with my friends! I'm going to have to say that indie films are the way to go. Don't get me wrong a love the huge blockbusters that Christopher Nolan keeps cranking out, but I always seem to feel a stronger connection to characters in an indie movie. Indie movies always have a much, much lower budget than a big blockbuster and I think where they lack in money they make up in plot and character. Indie movies also give the chance for unknown actors to get their names out to the public.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I have to say indie films are the best. Mainly because my favorite movie is Donnie Darko, which is an indie film. I absoutely LOVE blockbusters like Batman, Transformers, and The Fast and the Furious. However, I think indie movies are much more thought provoking and aren't extremely hyped up so they don't prove to be as disappointing. I'm a big Jake Gyllenhaal fan and found out about Donnie Darko years ago. I got the director's cut edition that explained more about the story and had to watch the movie a good ten times to MOSTLY wrap my head around it. It was so intriguing and really made me think. Blockbusters are brilliant, but they are more visually appealing than indie films. It is kind of like finding a band you love that no one else knows about. Indie films can be real treasures without all of the special effects.
ReplyDeleteI definitely see what you guys are saying. It's cool to see a actor's jump from indies to blockbusters. Joseph Gordon-Levitt will always be an indie actor to me even though he's starring in movies like inception. And yes, Donnie Darko/Jake Gyllenhaal are the bees knees. That's funny that you got the director's cut of it to try to help understand it. I'm still not sure I get it, haha, I just know I like it. Looks like I might need to pick up the director's cut!
ReplyDeleteI must admit that I am partial to both. I like many major blockbuster movies like most of us do because of the excitement that it evokes. There’s nothing like going to a Transformers movie (so anxious for that to come out already!) and anticipating all the action packed scenes you caught a glimpse of during the previews. However, there have been some indie movies that turned out great and even made it to the big screen. After all, that’s how the Twilight Saga started out.
ReplyDeleteFor me the right answer is both. Some movies need the budget sometimes it is to make up for a subpar plot in that case I feel the movie should not be made at all. For an example inception would be the worst if it was an indie film and not a block buster, but it made a pretty good blockbuster. On the other hand look at an early Wes Anderson movie to slow moving for a theatre and nowhere to spend blockbuster money. You need both for good variety.
ReplyDelete